FlyingGreg wrote:Agreed - but there is a difference between reworking contracts to make them more cap friendly (converting bonuses, for example) and pay cuts.

Most players probably won't go along with a pay cut, but having their deals reworked where they get a bonus instead of salary is a pretty good deal since they get it all at once.

Well, if you are just moving money around that doesn't really help us. We aren't up tight against the cap right now- we just need to look for ways to streamline the roster so that we have money to spend for years to come. X amount of money is still X amount of money even if you change it's shape, especially in the new CBA which has a rolling cap structure.

As far as suggesting less money for more guaranteed money, I think that's a good idea, but a player will probably refuse it if he feels he's secure on the roster and is going to earn his base salary anyway.

kearly wrote:Not to sound harsh, but I think a few people are being naive with regards to value/money. Sure, Seattle can keep their essential players even with the Harvin investment. I made the same argument in my Revis thread. However, there is no escaping the fact that this acquisition will cost Seattle multiple players. 3 players from the draft alone, and 2-3 more from the financial side too. It's basically a "blockbuster" trade a bit like when the Knicks traded for Carmello or the M's traded for Erik Bedard. I think Harvin will work out better than those deals did, but I don't think we should just downplay the cost to justify liking the move.

On the flip side of this Kip, I think you are way over estimating the COST of trading away these picks, and whatever contract Harvin will sign. "3 players from draft alone" is extremely misleading because we are getting arguably a better player out of that ONE pick than we would for all three. The 2-3 players from the financial side isn't a known factor either, because their is NO guarantee those players would stick around in FA or that the team would want those contracts to begin with. This is not a "blockbuster" trade in the way you are making it out to be, this is essentially us using that 1st round draft pick on Harvin, and sliding Minny a mid round pick and a 7th round pick for compensation. You cannot factor out what you believe to be unimportant, while over emphasizing the things you think are.

In trying to put faces on this trade (take this with a grain of salt), we basically acquired Harvin in exchange for something that might resemble this: Datone Jones (1st round), Kenny Stills (7th round), D'Anthony Thomas (3rd round next year), Kam Chancellor (maybe $7 million a year), Jason Jones (maybe $5 million a year). It doesn't have to be those names, but it would be a comparable package of talent.

I will take the names with a grain of salt because, KC is the only guy on that list that would be hard for me to swallow. Even then, Kam is replaceable. As for your last sentence, you are incorrect. It doesn't have to be comparable in TALENT just in CAP SPACE. You are trying to equate the two, which is extremely naive. As the Hawks have shown, this last year in particular, talent and the amount of money you spend don't have to be correlated. This front office has shown they know how to get talent, especially on the defensive side of the ball (where you have most of your cuts/losses at), cheaply and affectively. Draft well, and this will NOT be a problem, with the way contracts have gone with the CBA.

Additionally, the damage from this trade may possibly compound if Seattle feels they must work back into the first round this year for a pass rusher, just like how the Deon Butler trade kept coming back to bite us in the ass for years due to a draft domino effect (not having a 3rd in 2010 forced us to overpay for CW, the lack of a 3rd rounder the following year from the CW trade forced Seattle to trade down which contributed to a very weak start to that 2011 Seahawks draft).

Like most everything else you have said, this is conjecture that is essentially a scare tactic. What if, what if, what if. None of these things HAVE to be true, and even IF Seattle feels the need to jump back into the first round, they have a penchant for acquiring draft picks. Rounding off my point above, another way to deal with players that have large contracts looming, you can trade them before their contracts are up. In fact, that is how the most successful teams have done it. Keep the nucleus, trade the ones you can't/won't pay, and keep moving on.

Reworking contracts is never a given, btw. Look at how many players refused pay cuts in recent weeks and were let go as a result. If you approach Rice, Miller, or Bryant about reworking their deals, you better have a backup plan for their positions, because the odds are pretty good that they wouldn't accept a pay cut and you'll have to get rid of them.

Reworking is never a given, but neither is anything else you are saying here. A lot of churning of the wheels for no reason, when most of these problems are at least a year or two away. I haven't seen anything from this front office that makes me think they will get caught with their pants down, and it is surprising to me to see someone of your insight into the team question that. These aren't the same guys that trade for CBJ.

So while some of us maybe naive for underestimating the impact, that cloth cuts both ways with the nervousness you are portraying here.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

I like some of the deal, the fact he will play for us is outstanding, HOWEVER we paid too damn much for him, considering what the 49ers did. I think we could have got him less the first round pick, ie- a couple middle round picks. Our GM finally got took

kearly wrote:Not to sound harsh, but I think a few people are being naive with regards to value/money. Sure, Seattle can keep their essential players even with the Harvin investment. I made the same argument in my Revis thread. However, there is no escaping the fact that this acquisition will cost Seattle multiple players. 3 players from the draft alone, and 2-3 more from the financial side too. It's basically a "blockbuster" trade a bit like when the Knicks traded for Carmello or the M's traded for Erik Bedard. I think Harvin will work out better than those deals did, but I don't think we should just downplay the cost to justify liking the move.

In trying to put faces on this trade (take this with a grain of salt), we basically acquired Harvin in exchange for something that might resemble this: Datone Jones (1st round), Kenny Stills (7th round), D'Anthony Thomas (3rd round next year), Kam Chancellor (maybe $7 million a year), Jason Jones (maybe $5 million a year). It doesn't have to be those names, but it would be a comparable package of talent.

Additionally, the damage from this trade may possibly compound if Seattle feels they must work back into the first round this year for a pass rusher, just like how the Deon Butler trade kept coming back to bite us in the ass for years due to a draft domino effect (not having a 3rd in 2010 forced us to overpay for CW, the lack of a 3rd rounder the following year from the CW trade forced Seattle to trade down which contributed to a very weak start to that 2011 Seahawks draft).

Reworking contracts is never a given, btw. Look at how many players refused pay cuts in recent weeks and were let go as a result. If you approach Rice, Miller, or Bryant about reworking their deals, you better have a backup plan for their positions, because the odds are pretty good that they wouldn't accept a pay cut and you'll have to get rid of them.

That might cost us those players... the fact that we already have a solid team with few glaring holes likely means that instead of drafting players then cutting them, we can draft players and keep them. Also no way will Kam Chancellor cost 7m a year, there are only 7 safeties in the entire league earning more than 5m next year. Maybe Kam will want paid like a top 5 safety, but the likelihood is he'll "settle" for around 4m a year (average salary of the 10th highest paid safety in the league).

kearly wrote:. However, there is no escaping the fact that this acquisition will cost Seattle multiple players. 3 players from the draft alone, and 2-3 more from the financial side too. .

I think this math is flawed

1) You just got a player just earlier than the draft so to me that reduces the number of players to two2) Very likely that the 7th rounder doesn't make the 53-man roster team so now you are looking at 2 or maybe 1 player only that you lost3) Those 1 or 2 players are at a risk. They could be good they could be horrible. Here the risk is replaced with injury risk (like all players have) but you know the guy can play in this league

4) you would have paid those draft picks as well so you can't just count three guys salary on the team and not count the money spent on the first round and 4th rounder (I am assuming 7th rounder gets cut)

Sure there is a cost - there always is but it isn't 3 guys in the draft and 3 others on the team.

HUNTER wrote:I like some of the deal, the fact he will play for us is outstanding, HOWEVER we paid too damn much for him, considering what the 49ers did. I think we could have got him less the first round pick, ie- a couple middle round picks. Our GM finally got took

The niners are getting a possession receiver at the end of his career, while we're getting one of the best receivers / playmakers in the game today.

I think a lot of fans still aren't aware of how big of an acquisition this was. With the time that RW can buy with his legs, no DB in the league will be able to stick Percy for that long. They're going to make so many plays.

Its doubtful there is a WR at pick 25 or whatever that is as ready as Harvin will be. He is only 24-5 years old. If you look at him as the first round pick, its a great move. The 7th rounder probably doesn't help the team this year or next. The Seahawks have set themselves up to "win now" . Its a good to great move (assuming PH doesn't turn into a malcontent that he was in Minny)

The value of giving away those draft picks is probably equivalent to moving up 4-5 spots in the first round (going by the fact that we got a 4th and 6th round pick for moving down from 12 to 15), which is very good value for Harvin if he's as good as you believe he is.

Those picks turned into Jeremy Lane and Jaye Howard. Now say what you want about that, but would anyone say we overpaid if we moved those 2 over to Minnesota with our 1st round pick?

HUNTER wrote:I like some of the deal, the fact he will play for us is outstanding, HOWEVER we paid too damn much for him, considering what the 49ers did. I think we could have got him less the first round pick, ie- a couple middle round picks. Our GM finally got took

No. We weren't the only ones in on Harvin. We actually beat out the 9ers for his services, barely. This isn't a video game, stop acting like Schneider and Carroll didn't know the market.

You're wrong though, Harvin would not be a Hawk right now had we offered "a couple middle round picks"

Last edited by Hawkfan77 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

GREEDY PUNK PAUL ALLEN, THIS LOSS IS ON YOU."I don't give a crap WHAT you gotta pay, Kam is worth it and I don't want to lose a shot at another SB cuz you - a freaking BILLIONAIRE, are cheapskating Kam over a freaking $900,000.You cheapskate." SalishHawkFan SEP 13, 2015 1:47 PM

themunn wrote:The value of giving away those draft picks is probably equivalent to moving up 4-5 spots in the first round (going by the fact that we got a 4th and 6th round pick for moving down from 12 to 15), which is very good value for Harvin if he's as good as you believe he is.

Yes, I think someone worked it out to be like moving up to the 22nd-23rd pick. If Harvin was in this draft, he would be LONG gone before then.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

I'm not worried about the 7th round pick because there are ways of acquiring those. Off the top of my head, I think we had like four 7th round picks anyway. It's almost like a preferred UDFA.

The mid-rounder is of more concern, obviously, but it seems like our front office tries to get a certain number of picks per draft. I am sure they will do something to add picks next year to replace it, if need be.

I don't see Harvin as injury prone. He had a problem last year, but he is young. I wouldn't think it will be a problem going forward. A player like Harvin may be of more value to this offense than anybody outside of Calvin Johnson and one or two other elite receivers. He fits in with what we like to do on offense.

I would love to see us get a great outside receiver, but you add what you can, when you can.

kearly wrote:Not to sound harsh, but I think a few people are being naive with regards to value/money. Sure, Seattle can keep their essential players even with the Harvin investment. I made the same argument in my Revis thread. However, there is no escaping the fact that this acquisition will cost Seattle multiple players. 3 players from the draft alone, and 2-3 more from the financial side too. It's basically a "blockbuster" trade a bit like when the Knicks traded for Carmello or the M's traded for Erik Bedard. I think Harvin will work out better than those deals did, but I don't think we should just downplay the cost to justify liking the move.

In trying to put faces on this trade (take this with a grain of salt), we basically acquired Harvin in exchange for something that might resemble this: Datone Jones (1st round), Kenny Stills (7th round), D'Anthony Thomas (3rd round next year), Kam Chancellor (maybe $7 million a year), Jason Jones (maybe $5 million a year). It doesn't have to be those names, but it would be a comparable package of talent.

Additionally, the damage from this trade may possibly compound if Seattle feels they must work back into the first round this year for a pass rusher, just like how the Deon Butler trade kept coming back to bite us in the ass for years due to a draft domino effect (not having a 3rd in 2010 forced us to overpay for CW, the lack of a 3rd rounder the following year from the CW trade forced Seattle to trade down which contributed to a very weak start to that 2011 Seahawks draft).

Reworking contracts is never a given, btw. Look at how many players refused pay cuts in recent weeks and were let go as a result. If you approach Rice, Miller, or Bryant about reworking their deals, you better have a backup plan for their positions, because the odds are pretty good that they wouldn't accept a pay cut and you'll have to get rid of them.

I know you hear this a lot, Kip, but I am grateful that you're a member of this community. You bring balance to the force.

The reflexive "In Schneider I Trust" stuff echoes the "In Ruskell I Trust" mantra that dominated this board a few years ago. Pete and John are clearly better than Ruskell and have done some wonderful things, but they make their share of mistakes too. I understand fans wanting to be excited and Harvin is a nice player, but the Seahawks overpaid. More productive players with fewer red flags have been acquired for less. Teams overpay when they think they are a piece or two away from a championship, and perhaps the Seahawks are. But, if you follow sports at all, you have seen teams across all the major leagues try this impatient approach with usually deleterious results.

If Harvin stays healthy he will certainly be a dynamic player. Bevell is probably already adding plays to exploit his many gifts and, in conjunction with Wilson, we may see plays and formations never previously attempted in the NFL. But, there is also a significant probability that some of his injury issues resurface or that his attitude problems are irreparable. In which case the theoretical five players in Kearly's post will deserve some retroactive consideration. To me, 5 good players is better than 1 great player, unless that one player is so incredibly special and durable and reliable that his presence tilts the field. I can maybe think of couple dozen players that could do that and, at this point, Harvin isn't one of them.

Yeah I'm Canadian (ie. the country that doesn't owe 4 trillion dollars to China). We're hella good with money yo.

Guys, I think it's time to transition the thinking away from the draft a little bit. At least get away from scouring the mid rounds for those oh so awesome diamonds in teh rough we've become so accustomed to finding. Pete himself said it's going to be very hard for rookies to crack the line-up going forward on account of the fact that this team has very few holes now. In light of that, what is the point of stockpiling 15 draft picks if only 1 or 2 of them are goign to stick? I said this early in the regime's tenure; as they build the team, it looks like the plan is to trade their valuable early picks back to stockpile mid round picks to fill out the roster with role players. As the roster gets filled out, the plan will likely flip to packaging up those mid round picks and moving them for early picks to move up and obtain playmakers.

At 24 y/o (remember, last year's 1st round pick Bruce Irvin was 24) trading what we traded for Harvin is damn near the equivalent of moving up a few spots in the first round to draft the best playmaker available. If there was three or four playmakers in the first round of the actual draft they had their eye on, there is zero guarantee they get their guy (and there is zero evidence that guy will produce in the NFL). By trading the picks for the player, they are guaranteed to get their man and that man is a very well known comodity. If they are so inclined, they still have plenty of ammo to move up into the early 2nd round to draft a dude like Kawaan Short.

If all we do this season is get Percey Harvin and Kawaan Short, I'd be happy as hell with this off season. If through the magic of John Schneider we also manage to bring in another candidate to play Will, I'll be even happier.

Thunderhawk wrote:The reflexive "In Schneider I Trust" stuff echoes the "In Ruskell I Trust" mantra that dominated this board a few years ago. Pete and John are clearly better than Ruskell and have done some wonderful things, but they make their share of mistakes too. I understand fans wanting to be excited and Harvin is a nice player, but the Seahawks overpaid. More productive players with fewer red flags have been acquired for less. Teams overpay when they think they are a piece or two away from a championship, and perhaps the Seahawks are. But, if you follow sports at all, you have seen teams across all the major leagues try this impatient approach with usually deleterious results.

Except there were a large number of us on this board and others that hated the Ruskell approach to things. The mistakes PC/JS have made are growing pains, nothing near the magnitude Ruskell made even in his first two years of running the team. This approach is not impatient, it is called striking when the iron is hot, big difference. As for overpaying for Harvin, that remains to be seen. There is nothing as it stands right now that can tell us one way or the other if we overpaid. If Harvin is the next stepping stone to a long line of winning seasons and possibly a SB, no one will have cared what picks we gave up for him or what contract he signed. Some people are wringing their hands now, over what will happen 2-3 years down the road. And like I said above, there is nothing this front office has shown me, that makes me think they will put themselves hard up against a wall regardless.

Last edited by HawksFTW on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

Thunderhawk wrote: To me, 5 good players is better than 1 great player, unless that one player is so incredibly special and durable and reliable that his presence tilts the field. I can maybe think of couple dozen players that could do that and, at this point, Harvin isn't one of them.

And this is really where thie disconnect lies. I DO think that Harvin tilts the field in the same dramatic fashion that guys like Russell Wilson and Earl Thomas do.

But whereas Russell and Earl are cornerstones, Percy is a wildcard. The team is already filled to the top with "good" players. We already have a "good" offense. We don't need 5 more "good" players from the draft. Harvin has the ability to be the difference maker that pushes us over the top. Harvin has the ability to make us great. We already have lots of role players, we need difference makers and I'd gladly trade a truck full of role players for one guy like that.

What if 2 or 3 of those players aren't starting because other good players are in front of them in the depth chart? What if the roster is packed with good players?

I might take the 1 great player to tilt the field.

And to tie into the posts on this page, at a certain point you will have to pay those 3-5 "good" players their second/third contracts as well. In today's NFL is nearly impossible to pay everyone, and at a certain point you hit the law of diminishing returns. Good players on good teams get overpaid on a regular basis, so there is no point in saying 1 great player will ultimately cost more than 5 good players.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

CANHawk wrote:Yeah I'm Canadian (ie. the country that doesn't owe 4 trillion dollars to China). We're hella good with money yo.

Guys, I think it's time to transition the thinking away from the draft a little bit. At least get away from scouring the mid rounds for those oh so awesome diamonds in teh rough we've become so accustomed to finding. Pete himself said it's going to be very hard for rookies to crack the line-up going forward on account of the fact that this team has very few holes now. In light of that, what is the point of stockpiling 15 draft picks if only 1 or 2 of them are goign to stick? I said this early in the regime's tenure; as they build the team, it looks like the plan is to trade their valuable early picks back to stockpile mid round picks to fill out the roster with role players. As the roster gets filled out, the plan will likely flip to packaging up those mid round picks and moving them for early picks to move up and obtain playmakers.

At 24 y/o (remember, last year's 1st round pick Bruce Irvin was 24) trading what we traded for Harvin is damn near the equivalent of moving up a few spots in the first round to draft the best playmaker available. If there was three or four playmakers in the first round of the actual draft they had their eye on, there is zero guarantee they get their guy (and there is zero evidence that guy will produce in the NFL). By trading the picks for the player, they are guaranteed to get their man and that man is a very well known comodity. If they are so inclined, they still have plenty of ammo to move up into the early 2nd round to draft a dude like Kawaan Short.

If all we do this season is get Percey Harvin and Kawaan Short, I'd be happy as hell with this off season. If through the magic of John Schneider we also manage to bring in another candidate to play Will, I'll be even happier.

Now everyone go out and get some poutine!

Excellent post.

I'll add that, you've gotta give in order to get and the best type of trade is one that works for both organizations. That's how you keep healthy business relationships with teams running. This has the potential to be a win-win type deal for both teams, which is ideally what everyone wants.

Thunderhawk wrote: To me, 5 good players is better than 1 great player, unless that one player is so incredibly special and durable and reliable that his presence tilts the field. I can maybe think of couple dozen players that could do that and, at this point, Harvin isn't one of them.

You can only have 11 on the field at once though, and when you already have 11 good players on the field, adding another 5 good players doesn't do anything except cover you if someone gets injured.

And we already have 53 good players

That means instead of maybe replacing Ben Obomanu or Jermaine Kearse with Percy Harvin, you're replacing players like Winston Guy, Byron Maxwell, Malcolm Smith and the previously mentioned 2 with players who'll fill a similar role but are maybe a little better.

It's nice to have players like Matt Flynn available when we need them. But if we win the Superbowl next year, it's not going to be because we've got guys like Matt Flynn and Jermaine Kearse to come in for a series or two and the opposition don't, it'll be because we've got guys like Russell Wilson and Percy Harvin that wins the game for you.

THAT SAID, I'm not sure Percy Harvin tilts the field either, it's the 5 good v 1 great argument I'm disagreeing with. But if he IS that player that tilts the field, I'd rather 1 of him than 5 decent players

ImTheScientist wrote:This guy is the closest thing to beast mode we will ever see. You got a glimpse of that yesterday. He was instantly my favorite player when they signed him. Give the dude a chance and don't overreact or overthink preseason. Go Hawks. Lacy will rush for 1,100 and 10TDs. Bend the knee.

kearly wrote:Not to sound harsh, but I think a few people are being naive with regards to value/money. Sure, Seattle can keep their essential players even with the Harvin investment. I made the same argument in my Revis thread. However, there is no escaping the fact that this acquisition will cost Seattle multiple players. 3 players from the draft alone, and 2-3 more from the financial side too. It's basically a "blockbuster" trade a bit like when the Knicks traded for Carmello or the M's traded for Erik Bedard. I think Harvin will work out better than those deals did, but I don't think we should just downplay the cost to justify liking the move.

In trying to put faces on this trade (take this with a grain of salt), we basically acquired Harvin in exchange for something that might resemble this: Datone Jones (1st round), Kenny Stills (7th round), D'Anthony Thomas (3rd round next year), Kam Chancellor (maybe $7 million a year), Jason Jones (maybe $5 million a year). It doesn't have to be those names, but it would be a comparable package of talent.

Additionally, the damage from this trade may possibly compound if Seattle feels they must work back into the first round this year for a pass rusher, just like how the Deon Butler trade kept coming back to bite us in the ass for years due to a draft domino effect (not having a 3rd in 2010 forced us to overpay for CW, the lack of a 3rd rounder the following year from the CW trade forced Seattle to trade down which contributed to a very weak start to that 2011 Seahawks draft).

Reworking contracts is never a given, btw. Look at how many players refused pay cuts in recent weeks and were let go as a result. If you approach Rice, Miller, or Bryant about reworking their deals, you better have a backup plan for their positions, because the odds are pretty good that they wouldn't accept a pay cut and you'll have to get rid of them.

I know you hear this a lot, Kip, but I am grateful that you're a member of this community. You bring balance to the force.

The reflexive "In Schneider I Trust" stuff echoes the "In Ruskell I Trust" mantra that dominated this board a few years ago. Pete and John are clearly better than Ruskell and have done some wonderful things, but they make their share of mistakes too. I understand fans wanting to be excited and Harvin is a nice player, but the Seahawks overpaid. More productive players with fewer red flags have been acquired for less. Teams overpay when they think they are a piece or two away from a championship, and perhaps the Seahawks are. But, if you follow sports at all, you have seen teams across all the major leagues try this impatient approach with usually deleterious results.

If Harvin stays healthy he will certainly be a dynamic player. Bevell is probably already adding plays to exploit his many gifts and, in conjunction with Wilson, we may see plays and formations never previously attempted in the NFL. But, there is also a significant probability that some of his injury issues resurface or that his attitude problems are irreparable. In which case the theoretical five players in Kearly's post will deserve some retroactive consideration. To me, 5 good players is better than 1 great player, unless that one player is so incredibly special and durable and reliable that his presence tilts the field. I can maybe think of couple dozen players that could do that and, at this point, Harvin isn't one of them.

I concur with Thunderhawk. Instead of moving up in the first round to get Austin (who has been described as possibly the "next" Percy Harvin), we went out an got Percy Harvin. I like this move, but I hope we get a second round pick when we trade Flynn to make the loss of a third not hurt as bad.

I like this trade a little bit better today than I did yesterday, but I'm still skeptical. One of the things I'm starting to like though is Harvin's versatility saves you a roster spot on special teams and RB that you can use elsewhere. You can keep one less RB and don't need a kickoff returner specialist like we had for Leon, and use those spots for an extra D-lineman or 3rd string QB to develop.

THere is a point in the development of a franchise where 5 good players is better than one. We've been there the last 5 years.

And then there is a point in the development of a franchise where the base has been built, the depth is solid, and one great player can make the diffference between 10 wins and 14. between a playoff appearance and a Superbowl appearance.

McGruff wrote:THere is a point in the development of a franchise where 5 good players is better than one. We've been there the last 5 years.

And then there is a point in the development of a franchise where the base has been built, the depth is solid, and one great player can make the diffference between 10 wins and 14. between a playoff appearance and a Superbowl appearance.

I think we've at that point.

This... This is what we need to get used to.

Last season has shown that the Seahawks are beyond the developmental stage.